Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

thelig.ht

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 545 posts

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#521

Post by kuon »

progfix wrote: post #501
kuon wrote: post #127

I've given thousands of hours to open source projects, I really think open source is a pillar of modern society. So you would think I am all for something like copilot, but no. At first I thought this was a great feature, because easier access to code, but after some reflection, I am also very skeptical. I am able to make my code open source, because I can make a living out of it, and I have a lot of open source code…

> I have a lot of open source code that I love to share for things like education or private stuff, but if you want to use it for something real, you need to hire me. Then you should share your code with a license that reflects that.

I do. But as long as the repository is public, copilot will feed on it. At least this is what I understood.

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#522

Post by kuon »

saurik wrote: post #447
jefftk wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> open source and free for non-commercial use only That's not open source: https://opensource.org/osd

You have said this multiple times on this thread now, but in addition to how the OSI getting to unilaterally define the technical definition of "open source" being controversial even within the software engineering community, you really need to be looking at the definition of words "descriptively" and most people seem to put even "shared source" (look but don't touch) models as subsets of the class "open source". Reg…

This is the gist of it. I do not agree with OSI definition of open source but I won't argue about it here.

There are many OSI approved licenses with restrictions on use, like "your software must also be open source" or "contribute back your changes" or "give me attribution"...

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#523

Post by johnday »

tluyben2 wrote: post #512
johnday wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like the person you're responding to already releases their code under a non-commercial license. The problem with Copilot is that it may allow commercial enterprises to avoid such a license by copying the code verbatim from their repositories, possibly without any party involved knowing that it's happened.

But this is only for snippets right? Which I think is the issue: it has never been tested in court. Basically if you put: /* web user management */ And copilot comes up with complete user management lifted out of another repo with all pages, db structures and logic but the copyrights stripped then yes. But, as I understand it, that is not what it does. You will need to slowly tell it every tiny part of how user mamag…

> But when you are done, there might be snippets from 100s of different repositories potentially.

Potentially, but not necessarily. It's possible also that if there is only one close match for the logic required, it may produce verbatim something it's already seen. GPT is known to do this for sufficiently precise inputs.

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#525

Post by jozvolskyef »

0-_-0 wrote: post #506
jozvolskyef wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The human brain isn't Turing-complete as that would require infinite memory. I'm not saying that GPT-3 is even close, but it is in the same category. I tried playing chess against it. According to chess.com, move 10 was its first mistake, move 16 was its first blunder, and past move 20 it tried to make illegal moves. Try playing chess without a chessboard and not making an illegal move. It is difficult. Clearly it do…

> The human brain isn't Turing-complete as that would require infinite memory. This is wrong, this is not what Turing completeness is. It applies to computational models, not hardware. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness

How so? The page you link offers three definitions[1], and all of them require an infinite tape.

You could argue that a stack is missing in my simplified model of the human brain, which would be correct. I used the simple model in allusion to the Chinese room thought experiment which doesn't require anything more than a dictionary.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness#Formal_def...

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#526

Post by 0-_-0 »

jozvolskyef wrote: post #525
0-_-0 wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The human brain isn't Turing-complete as that would require infinite memory. This is wrong, this is not what Turing completeness is. It applies to computational models, not hardware. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness

How so? The page you link offers three definitions[1], and all of them require an infinite tape. You could argue that a stack is missing in my simplified model of the human brain, which would be correct. I used the simple model in allusion to the Chinese room thought experiment which doesn't require anything more than a dictionary. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness#Formal_def...

Turing completeness applies to models of computation, not hardware. Otherwise, nothing would be Turing-complete because infinite memory doesn't exist in the real world. Just read the first sentence of what you linked to:

In computability theory, several closely related terms are used to describe the computational power of a computational system (such as an abstract machine or programming language)

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#527

Post by bogwog »

jefftk wrote: post #439
bogwog wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can use your code to power my business, and I'm under no obligation to hire you. Make sure you read those licenses. Just because something is open source doesn't mean that you're free to use it for whatever you want. There are some projects that are open source and free for non-commercial use only.

> open source and free for non-commercial use only That's not open source: https://opensource.org/osd

My definition of "open source" is that the source code is publicly available. That's it.

Just because that organization got their hands on a premium domain name doesn't mean they get to decide what that term means.

You shouldn't assume random strangers online know that you're referring to OSI's definition when you say "open source".

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#528

Post by breck »

davidjytang wrote: post #486
breck wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Our government should not be in the business of regulating the distribution of a sequence of words about imaginary wizards. JK is a talented and hard working writer, and though I'm not a fan personally of those books I respect that they likely are great pieces of work, but I believe we are getting the scraps of what we could get in the Intellectually Oppressed world compared to an Intellectually free world. I'd…

> Our government should not be in the business of regulating the distribution of a sequence of words about imaginary wizards. So not imaginary wizards then. What should be regulated? Is it nothing? Does your statement become "Our government should not be in the business of regulating the distribution of a sequence of words"?

> Does your statement become "Our government should not be in the business of regulating the distribution of a sequence of words"?

Yes. Your lungs is a tree that needs healthy air. Your brain is a tree that needs healthy ideas. When people are not free to clean the ideawaves, they fill with pollution, and that is where we find ourselves.

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#529

Post by icebraining »

zarzavat wrote: post #475
travisjungroth wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. I’m legitimately trying to understand. Do you think after that book was published it should have no copyright protection? That it should be totally legal for me to print and sell my own copies?

Sure why not? Do you think JK Rowling needs more money? Maybe the state could grant protection for 10 years after publishing to give the author a chance to recoup their investment. I don't know why the protection extends to the author's grandchildren.

The argument is whether copyright should exist at all, not if it should be shortened. They are very, very different discussions.

Re: I do not agree with Github's use of copyrighted code as training for Copilot

#530

Post by icebraining »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #380
ImprobableTruth wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your recollection is off, majorly. I'd recommend looking up the origins of the FSF/GPL/Copyleft. The entire movement essentially got started because Stallman gave Symbolics his (public domain) Lisp interpreter, then Symbolics improved it but refused to share the improvements. "No restrictions" has never been the goal and to claim that they're egoistic hypocrites who are just scared for their own livelihood because of…

> " I'd recommend looking up the origins of the FSF/GPL/Copyleft. " Are you sure you're in a position to be saying things like that? The closed source Xerox printer driver incident is generally viewed as the origin of RMS's thinking on Free Software, not the Symbolics incident. And, as others have pointed out, you were mistaken even on the particulars of that. As for Free Software not being about no restrictions, may…

But software built from source copied using Copilot is not guaranteed to preserve those freedoms to its users. Which is the whole point of the GPL - preserving these freedoms to subsequent users, as a chain.
Post reply on HN